As demented and disastrous as the two state “solution” is, most alternatives proffered by the Right would be no less calamitous. However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. – Sir Winston Churchill
As readers of this – soon to be discontinued – column are well aware, I have been a resolute opponent of the two-state solution (TSS), for a variety of reasons, including its logical inconsistency, moral bankruptcy and proven impracticality. Accordingly, I have argued that continued attempts to pursue it will inevitably result in tragedy and trauma for both Arab and Jew.
Perilous proposals
Sadly, however, those who rightly – no pun intended – oppose the TSS have been less than comprehensive and far-sighted in formulating the well-intentioned alternatives they proffer in its stead. Indeed, if implemented, some of these alternatives may well precipitate situations just as perilous at TSS – in some cases perhaps more so.
These TSS-resistant alternatives can be broadly bracketed into four major groupings:
-
(a) Those that advocate stabilizing the status quo, putting the emphasis on managing the conflict rather than resolving it, and condition any further accommodation of Palestinians’ demands on them “getting their act together” – i.e. by demonstrating more peace-conducive behavior.
(b) Those that are “Jordan-centric,” and involve giving Jordan a crucial role in the envisioned end-state solution – either as the planned abode of the Palestinian Arabs in the “West Bank” and/or in giving Amman the function of running the lives of the Palestinian Arabs in the “West Bank,” subject to overarching Israeli sovereignty.
(c) Those that advocate Israel’s partial annexation of Judea and Samaria, typically of the dominantly Jewish-populated Area C.
(d) Those that advocate annexation of the entire “West Bank,” offering Israeli citizenship to its Arab residents, typically together with changes in the electoral system to marginalize the potential impact of their vote.
Although these proposals may well obviate some of the deadly dangers entailed in the TSS and a consequent IDF evacuation of Judea/Samaria, they ignore – indeed may even augment – some of the grave threats to Israel’s survival that exist today. This is true both in terms of the diplomatic assault on the country’s legitimacy and the physical assault on its national security and the safety of its citizens.
What follows is a brutally compressed and far from comprehensive critique of these alternatives, which reflect an unwillingness on the part of many on the Israel Right to face harsh realities unflinchingly and to pursue their essentially valid point of departure to its logical but perhaps unpalatable conclusion.
Kicking the can down the road
While the first set of solutions (stabilization/ conflict management) is based on the ostensibly sensible approach of “not making things worse,” it is really nothing more than kicking the can down the road.
This approach may appear to have a measure of merit, but it seriously underestimates the urgency and intensity of the issues at hand, and the need to sketch, at least in general terms, some prescription for a preferred end-state arrangement. At best, these proposals are a temporary tactic rather than a serious strategy, providing no hint of how any long-term resolution is to be to be approached, much less achieved.
For whatever one’s position might be regarding Palestinian claims for political independence – whether one rejects them as a huge hoax designed to undermine Jewish sovereignty, or an authentic aspiration for national freedom – there seems little practical purpose, or moral justification, in proposing perpetuation of an unresolved state of open-ended limbo and indefinite suspended political animation.
Indeed, such delays are liable to make Israel’s plight even more dire. And to what end? Advocates of this approach usually prescribe stabilization/management of the status quo until there is perceptible positive change in the conduct of the Palestinians that will facilitate progress toward some “final status” outcome.
Futile and illogical
But this position is both futile and illogical.
It is illogical because one either recognizes the Palestinians’ right to nationhood as legitimate and authentic, or one does not.
If one does recognize such a right, its exercise cannot be made contingent on the judgment/approval of their behavior/ governance by some extraneous entity, particularly an adversarial one like Israel.
Why should Palestinian independence be conditioned on good governance and democracy and not that of Algeria or Afghanistan? Why should Palestinians be held to a higher standard than, say, Somalis or Sudanese.
Why should implementation of their “legitimate rights” be conditioned on reaching peaceable relations with any, or all, of their neighbors, when this was never the case for other claimants of national self-determination – including Israelis? What justification could there be for expecting Palestinians to accept Israel (with or without US accompaniment) as an adjudicator, not only of their behavior being “proper” enough to warrant statehood, but of the criteria by which it is to be so judged?
On the other hand, if one rejects the authenticity and legitimacy of the Palestinians’ claim to nationhood, what is the point in “stabilizing the status quo” and prolonging the state of “suspended political animation” until they prove themselves “deserving.” Surely logic would dictate endeavors to transform – rather than stabilize – the status quo and to strive for the establishment of a sustainable finalstatus arrangement that would not include a Palestinian state?
Futile and illogical (cont.)
If one refutes the legitimacy/authenticity of the Palestinian claims, prolonging the status quo is not only illogical, it is counterproductive. It will only entrench realities that make achieving such a sustainable final-status arrangement – sans a Palestinian state – that much more difficult to achieve.
Moreover, suggesting that the status quo should be stabilized in the hope of “improved” (i.e. peace–conducive/Israel-compliant) Palestinian behavior in the future is futile. Those who hope/believe that the Palestinians might one day “get their act together” lack one crucial element for making their case credible: a persuasive argument why this should ever occur.
After the better part of a quarter-century, since the giddy euphoria of Oslo, and the consequent flood of disaster and disappointment, it is time to recognize that with the Palestinians “what you see is what you’ll get.” In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, responsibility requires us to conclude that they do not have another “act” – and to begin formulating policy that proactively addresses – rather than evades – this unfortunate reality.
Historically true, politically implausible
The next group of TSS-resistant proposals is the Jordan-centric one based on, or linked to, the notion that “Jordan is Palestine.”
It is indisputable that this claim has much to support it, historically, geographically and demographically. After all, historically, Jordan did indeed comprise most of Mandatory Palestine, geographically covering almost 80 percent of its territory, while demographically, a clear majority of its current population are ethnically Palestinians. Moreover, until summarily, and arguably, illegally, stripped of their citizenship by King Hussein in 1988, all the Arab residents of the “West Bank” were Jordanian citizens.
Yet despite the compelling evidence that can be produced to support the claim that “Jordan is Palestine,” there are even more compelling ones to consider policy proposals based on it impractical – even imprudent – politically. (This is not to say that if such proposals were successful, the outcomes would not be desirable, but only that such success is unlikely, and even more unlikely to be sustainable, and that their likely failure would have dangerous repercussions.)
The Jordan-centric proposals typically advocate applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea/Samaria, and declaring that portion of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River (the present-day Hashemite kingdom) the Palestinian state.
“Harsher” variants envisage the resettlement of the Arab residents of these areas in trans-Jordan; more “benign” variants envisage Amman reinstating their Jordanian citizenship and undertaking the role of running the civilian aspects of their lives in the “West Bank,” under overarching Israeli sovereignty.
The major problem with Jordan-centric proposals is that Israel controls none of the decision variables crucial, not only for their success, but for their implementation.
By definition, they confer veto power on Amman, which could render the entire plan inoperable by refusing to accede to an idea it has very little incentive to accept.
Providing veto power to Amman
The current regime has little upside in shouldering responsibility for a large additional population with little sentiments of loyalty to the monarchy, and daunting disincentives, both political and economic, for doing so.
The winds of wrath that have swept through the region since December 2010 – a.k.a. the “Arab Spring” – have made the Jordan-centric prescriptions even more precarious for a myriad of reasons too numerous to enumerate here.
The prudent working assumption for Israeli strategic planners must be that the Islamic inputs of the “Spring” will, sooner or later, impact Jordan, either bringing an overtly Islamist regime to power, or an interim puppet-regime, in which the king is stripped of his power but retained as a figurehead by Islamist masters, to preclude the claim that “Jordan is Palestine” (see my “From potentate to puppet?” February 3, 2012).
This clearly makes any proposal for giving Jordan civilian jurisdiction –including for law enforcement – over the Palestinian Arabs in Judea/Samaria (as Jordanian citizens), very unwise. Neither the populace, nor the Jordanian authorities appointed to manage its civilian affairs, would any longer owe allegiance to an ostensibly moderate pro-Western monarchy, but – in all likelihood – to a vehemently Judeophobic Islamocracy, with a far greater stake in fomenting violence than in keeping the peace.
Action by the IDF to address this situation would inevitably be construed as a casus belli, and give the regime in Amman excellent grounds for rallying Arab assistance in protecting its citizens from “Zionist aggression.”
Crazy patchwork of enclaves
The third group of TSS-resistant proposals advocate annexation of portions of Judea/Samaria – typically Area C where the population is predominately Jewish.
Prima facie, the extension of Israeli sovereignty over additional territory is a positive idea. However, in the specific context of this group of proposals, it is likely to generate more problems than it will solve.
If a country deems certain territory to be under its sovereignty, it must demarcate the frontiers of that territory and be ready to secure them against infiltration or attack.
A brief glance at the map will immediately reveal how impractical such partial annexation would be for Israel. Area C is a crazy quilted patchwork of enclaves and axis roads, with an outer contour of hundreds of kilometers – possibly well over a thousand. Is this meant to designate Israel’s final sovereign frontiers?
If so, how is it to be secured, and at what cost operationally, financially and diplomatically? If not, how are these frontiers to be determined?
No less important, how is the status of the residual territory and its inhabitants to be established? For the remaining Areas A and B (less than 40 percent) are scattered helter-skelter in disconnected patches across the “West Bank,” clearly incapable of being forged into any sustainable collective entity, making the accusations of ethnically delineated and discriminatory Bantustans (or rather Arabstans) far more difficult to repudiate…
Impossible socioeconomic burden
This brings us to the final group of TSSresistant proposals, which advocate applying Israeli sovereignty to all of Judea/Samaria, together with an offer of Israeli citizenship to the Arab residents.
This type of proposal is typically accompanied by “alternative” (albeit well-substantiated) demographic assessments and blue prints for changes in the electoral system – usually the institution of a regional ballot rather than the current nationwide one – designed to minimize the impact of the newly enfranchised Palestinian Arabs.
Despite its theoretical logic, this is a prescription fraught with immense danger for the Zionist enterprise and Israel’s status as the Jewish nation-state.
Even if one believes that, despite the inevitable legal challenges, the boundaries of the voting constituencies could be gerrymandered to marginalize the Palestinian Arab vote, and even if the most optimistic demographic estimates prove correct, this will not obviate the perils.
For the socioeconomic burden entailed in the inclusion of such a large, culturally discordant population, many of whom have been infused with anti-Israel hatred for decades, will cripple the country and catapult it back into developing-nation status, certainly disqualifying it from its newly acquired membership in the OECD…
What to do?
Of course, none of this means that the TSS should be reinstated as the only viable option available to Israel. It clearly should not.
What is does mean is that the shortcomings of the alternatives analyzed above need to be dealt with in a more comprehensive and integrative manner, and that the issues at hand and the obstacles need to be addressed with greater foresight and broader perspective.
In next week’s column – the penultimate one in this “Into the Fray” series – I will trace the outline of how this might be accomplished.
www.martinsherman.net
Bernard
My knowledge of Judaism is not huge. But i do know that it is great and important because it held a nation together for 4000 years. I also know that Christianity was Jew Hating in much of its history, and that Islam is the very negation of being a human. Not enough and I will study more as I go along.
Everything you say about Trotskyism is wrong. You misunderstand almost everything. But at least you do talk about Stalin who is an important figure in the history, a negative figure.
i do not expect you to know about this Bernard. this history, no aspect of it, is taught in primary, university or anywhere and all Media are hostile.
But it is an historical thing and needs to be understood historically. Just take one thing and study it if you are really serious. Try to find out what happened in Spain from about 1930 to about 1939.
That will not be easy for you and that is just one country.
But at least it is concrete arnd all your remarks are in the general.
I cannot start from the general. I have to start ALWAYS from the particular and from there hopefully I can generalise.
My position on Israel and the Jews is:
1. jews did not creat Antisemitism…not one atom of it
2. jews must defend themselves against Antisemitism
3. Jews must live alone in Israel. Others will be there only as guests.
i think that is sensitive and it is also true. it also comes from my brain and from my person…who I am
I emphasised Bernard that a step towards that is for Israeli jews to wage war on its own traitors to prepare for war. How can that be quarrelled with?
@ yamit82: thank you for your link which I listened to. I wrote Mr. Kellerman a comment relating to his assumptions and analogies. The gist was that his assumptions limited G_d’s actions solely to those of a human being. My comment to him was as follows(Idon’t know if you remember Kellermans tape:
yamit82 Said:
The application of the logical constructs of men may be limited in understanding G_d’s abilities and powers, as I exampled to Kellerman. Even our comprehension of G_d’s intentions may be limited by our comprehension of what is possible. EG within the world that G_d has provided to us it appears that all contradictions exist simultaneously and our ability to comprehend the validity of simultaneous contradictory situations may cause us to assign intentions to Him which separate out contradictions. EG Kellerman could not conceive that the 600,000 Torah’s could be all different thus leaving 600,000 interpretations. In Man’s mind this is unimaginable and yet there is the joke that if there are 100,ooo Jews there will be 100,000 different opinions. According to Kellerman Birashit meant “..with the Torah G-d created the heaven and the earth.”. If that is true would G_d have used physical scrolls to create the heaven and earth? Although the link was titled a rational approach to the divinity of the oral tradition I did not get a sense of its divinity.
I was hoping to hear your interpretations of my prior comment’s question regarding “..I will put it into their hearts and write it into their minds”
This is not a personal attack, nor is this an ad hominem argument.
I said “In my opinion your are x,y,z, etc”. I even made point to add but this is just my opinion, not objective truth, so that there should be no possibility of any misunderstanding, that I am only sharing my subjective opinion.
Secondly, this is not and ad hominem logical fallacy, because I was using it in an appropriate context in which such opinion was relevant.
Here is the context. You said,
First of all you state authoritatively that “my” rabbi is a fool. You don’t say that in your opinion, you state this as if it was an established fact. Well it is not. He is well known and respected in several communities including NYC and S. Africa.
Secondly he is not “my rabbi”, he is my friend, who happened to be a rabbi.
Then finally you stated that “in your opinion [he is] not much of a rabbi”
And in that context it was appropriate for me to share my opinion about you as well.
I suspect that understanding this precise logical analysis of this simple event is far beyond your abilities, as I believe that the prime motivation behind your action is to prove your imagined wisdom and righteousness, which of course leaves no space for new perspectives.
So in my opinion your are close-minded on top of all the previously stated opinions.
Now that we have shared our opinions about each other, perhaps it is best that we stop the conversation.
@ Vivarto:
What did you say about personal attacks?
pot…kettle…black?
@ Bernard Ross:
This might help you grasp what I was trying to convey: Here
The Oral Law is not an addition to the Divine Words but rather an exposition of them.
The Rabbis were always careful in making their rulings to distinguish between what was written expressly and what they had learnt through studying the Hebrew expressions employed in Scripture and applying logical constructs. Their aim was always to discern the intention of the written word and to apply it. This is their duty.
To learn and study the Word of the Almighty is what we are commanded to do.
yamit82 Said:
No I am absolutely not depending on Jewish religion for such definition.
I am Jewish and I am not a part of Jewish religion, neither was either of my parents.
Nor were my grandparents on my mother’s side. My grandfather was an engineer and inventor, too intelligent to believe in idiocies about talking donkeys, etc. Yet, my family has been and still is strongly Zionists, and many of them were among the original pioneers fighting the Arabs to establish their settlements in the Land.
yamit82 Said:
I understand your opinion.
We all have our opinions.
In my opinion you are harmful, toxic, arrogant, self-righteous, narrow minded, divisive, dishonest, pretentious, but this is just my opinion, not objective truth.
@ Vivarto:
Isn’t it curious, that you depend upon the Jewish religion as your definition of who is a Jew.
That same Judaism is what defines who and what is Jewish.. but you reject Judaism? Hmmm something don’t fit here.
@ Vivarto:
Your orthodox rabbi is a fool and in my opinion not much of a rabbi either.
Bernard Ross Said:
Perhaps, but my point is that being part o Jewish nation, is not the same as being part of the Judaic religion.
I would be perfectly happy for half the world to convert Jewish religion, because that would generate support for Israel. However being practicing member of Judaism does no make one a member of the nation. Just like by converting to Shinto religion and by practicing it diligently I will still remain a Jew and will not become Japanese
Vivarto Said:
for the first 200 years of Christianity they observed the Jewish holidays and considered themselves Jews. the 7th day adventists do observe Saturday as the Sabbath. For all we know the Christian trend of looking to the Jewish roots may result in an opposite affect than expected. After all, it seems to me that the elephant in the room is that Jesus was a practicing Jew who was, apparently, observing a Pesach seder 3 days before his death. Perhaps the Christians will be interested in learning about the religion that he was practicing rather than the one invented after his death by others and ascribed to him. I hope this does not encourage anyone to start a jewish christian discussion,as this is not the subject of discussion, it is just a passing observation.
yamit82 Said:
I am saying that I don’t care if someone believes in a sanitize version of Christianity.
Once all antisemitic references and implications need to be removed, I am not opposed to Christianity. Of course I consider it stupid to believe in nonsense such as “virgin birth”, or “walking on water” but so is Judaism and Hinduism full of stupidity: “donkey talking to Baalam”, or “Moses turning sticks into snakes and back”, or “Samson’s strength dependin on his hair”, etc.
There is no question in my mind that Christianity is a Jewish sect.
Perhaps they should make changes and start celebrating Saturday, rather than Sunday, just to declare themselves part o Jewish nation, perhaps they should also be kosher, after all it is in their Bible. This way they will be coherent.
Anyway, your and my views are different, and I am OK with that.
To me you are a religious fanatic, but I accept you as part of my people. I am an atheist, and you don’t accept me as part of Jewish nation.
(Interestingly my Orthodox rabbi friend does based on my birth. He does not care about my atheism.)
Forgive me for barging in, but the subject is of great interest to me.
For the record I consider many halachic rulings stupid and irrelevant to modern Jews. Being a non-believer and anti-religious Jews my views are based on general human ethics. I accept that we live in a world where the best choice may be a lesser injustice. To me there is no question that it is a lesser injustice to preserve the Jewish nation and the Jewish nation state where this nation may flower.
Expulsions and relentlessness of Muslims may be unpleasant, but are not genocide.
They should be supported in the same way as the resettlement of Sudeten Germans, because both are/were necessary to the survival of a nation.
@ yamit82: Dear yamit, I see from other posters that you are designated as the “site rabbi”. I want to say that I have read all your prior links in answer to my responses and queries and generally found them to be informative and of interest. I find that in many ways I agree with your final conclusions. I find you are well versed both biblically and secularly. I am curious and interested in your religious and halachic positions and how you integrate those with life in general. My halachic knowledge is severely limited and I remember little from my childhood “hebrew school”. However, I have always been interested in Jewish history and the land of Israel. To illustrate my ramblings with an example: I frankly agree with driving out most of the arabs for practical reasons and note that these reasons appear to agree with your halachic examples. However, I find it difficult to justify my position as being of a moral nature or a good deed. I feel it is best for the Jewish people and accept that others may suffer. That Justice for the Jews requires an affirmative action approach that may in the short term inconvenience others. Simply put, I am for the Jews first. Your use of the halachic example as a commandment for todays times appears based upon later rabbinic interpretation, which I understand to be the most accepted approach in Judaism.
My problem with these interpretations, and the rabinnic approach, is that they come through men and are not direct from G_d. Why should I accept their interpretations? Does G_d need intermediaries in Judaism? Is he unable to communicate directly with every man? The Christians have interpreted the bible in direct contrast to Judaism, and all it stands for,so why would G_d have us rely on Man? Would he not be clear or would he put us all through a confusion of hoops as at a circus? It appears to me that the same G_d who can write the complete history and future of every man in Physical DNA, for us to see clearly, can do the same in the spiritual and moral world. It appears that through experience or genetics I have a strong aversion to submission to commandments transmitted by Man. To me, Man appears to be full of lies and corruption in all walks of life including the apparent pious and religious. In fact much of the posture of the “religious” appears to be vanity and has me wondering whether mans religion is the opposite of G_d and perhaps the supreme sin of vanity. Perhaps the example is true but perhaps it was a specific commandment for that time and perhaps the rabinnic interpretations are wrong(after all they emanate from men) An argument for the primacy of rabinnic tradition and interpretion, that I have read, is that G_d did not fill in all the details. Is this an acceptable conclusion regarding an all powerful G_d, that he forgot details that only certain specific intermediaries have the ability to interpret but others do not. In your later post on the same subject you use the following phrase which I feel is the problem with the interpretation of Men:
It seems to me that this is the basis of all men’s interpretations of the Bible. However, if that phrase is true of G_d’s will,if “it follows that”, would it not be true to every man without intermediary interpretation? I am very curious as to your interpretation of the following (inexact) quote: “…after that time…I shall put it into their hearts and write it into their minds…” Surely G_d is capable of this and DNA attests to this:. In your interpretation has that time come or must we rely on the highly undependable intermediaries of men?
yamit82 Said:
As far as I am concerned someone who’s parents and grandparents lived in Israel and were good loyal citizens, and served in IDF. Someone who’s native tong is Hebrew and who considers himself part of the Jewish nation IS part of the Jewish nation, is a Jew.
Just like if you suddenly learned that you were adopted during infancy by Jewish Israeli parents, while your biological parents were not Jewish. That would not make you any less Jewish in your own sense of Identity, nor in my eyes, nor in any sane person’s eyes.
Ted, my reply to Felix Quigley did not appear, this is occurring regularly now so I am wondering if your system has designated me as a spammer?
@ Felix Quigley: Greetings Felix. I have read a number of your posts and would like to make a couple of observations. You are a Trotskyist, which although I am not sure exactly what that is I believe it is a kin to socialism/communism. You often compare Capitalism with Trotskyism but is that a fair comparison? I know of many nations that have varying degrees of capitalism and of socialism/communism but no Trotskyist nations. If I am correct then you are comparing an ideal, or idology , with an actual manifestation of an opposite ideology, which is like comparing apples and oranges. It has been my, and others, experience with socialism/communism that there is very little resemblance to the original ideals or ideologies. I have found these govts to be incredibly repressive of personal and public freedoms, incredibly corrupt and incredibly unsuccessful economically(unless they are resource rich). I have also found many negatives in the actual practice of free enterprise and capitalism but less repression of personal and public freedoms. This is why I find the appeal to ideology to be irrelevant because these ideologies are executed by men and men tend to corruption as much as not. The corrupt tend to find their way to the top, possibly a necessary qualification for the position. I have not experienced Scandinavian socialism but they appear to be anti semitic and anti Israel which demonstrates that anti semitism is not just a manifestation of capitalism as you imply. I believe that Stalin and his Russia were also quite anti semitic. speaking of Russia they appear to trend toward hierarchical govt and have little experience or affinity with the democratic process. Whether Czarism, Communism or the Church they appear to desire “strong” leaders. What is interesting to me is that most of the actions you advise for Israel seem reminiscent of the same strong leadership demonstrated by Stalin and Hitler, his apparent ideological opposite. Although I might like to see the end result of some of those actions I fear these tactics would be unattractive to most Israelis. The actions I refer to are those following the ensuing quote:
@ Vivarto:
They may be allowed to hold resident alien status with no political rights. In a Jewish State only Jews may have political rights otherwise it would be counter to divine will and purpose and the raison d’etre of a Jewish polity. Non Jewish residents maintain full civil rights but not the right of owning property holding public office or bureaucratic positions. They will not be harmed and their personal rights and welfare respected as long as they respect our laws customs and traditions.
If they want to live like Jews they must become Jews to enjoy equality with Jews in a Jewish state.
We are not America and a bit older than
I don’t care what they think. Most of us do not agree that they are just another Jewish sect like reform Judaism.
YOU compare sectarian heretics (according to all mainstream Jewish denominations).. Christianity with Hassids or mythical Essenes?
We Jews are laissez faire with regards to others beliefs, but not in our own Jewish country. Here we determine what we allow in actions, behavior and even thought, of those who chose to visit or live. We will not allow ourselves to be defined by or dictated to by non Jews. If this bothers any gentiles too bad, just think of how gentiles have and are still bothering us.
@ yamit82:
I think I was using the same screen name, though I might have used “viiit”.
In a serious discussion that made me laugh out loud. What a joke this new fangled net has become!
As regards the above comments I am not opposed to you quoting this directive called a Halacha. But as an outsider I would advise respectfully that ALSO you need to translate things into the modern world, with all its political issues that are involved.
Easy to quote. Not so easy to explain reality.
OK! So in all the comments above from 2 to 18 you ignore my point about the US! Fair enough then this is what you do on the inside!
Israel needs a new party which is based on the principles that I as a Trotskyist put forward. You can call it “Yamit’s Great Halacha” if you wish but you cannot escape the principles which are:
1. The US and EU capitalism is joining forces openly with Islamic Imperialism (the Jihad)…ignore that one and you are sunk before you even start
2. The US and EU created the “Palestinians”, the Israeli leaders helped it along
3. the Palestinians concept is the spearhead of Islamic and Christian Antisemitiism. The Israeli stood aside and even helped it (the concept) along too.
There can be no living with the “Palestinian” concept in form or content. It was created by the Nazis (the Brits are Nazi…see treatment of Assange today) and is aimed straight at the heart of Israel’s existence and at millions of Jewish lives.
There can be no toleration or acceptance of this concept in any form. These people are Arabs and they are conducting the age old struggle to eliminate the Jews. These same people were on the side of the Roman Genocide and Expulsion, and hey they were with the Germans in the Holocaust of the Jews too.
What to do? Perhaps best to do nothing. But doing nothing means doing everything.
The first thing to do is to prepare for war. This means getting rid of leaders like Netanyahu and Barak, total opportunists.
A new Cabinet of War must be organized. This C of W is essentially a political programme.
This Cabinet of War must decide that War is Inevitable, not because Jews want it, but because it is a new concept “Isrealistic” that drives it.
Based on the concept that war is inevitable this Cabinet made up of Patriots will automatically take decisions. As I said many many times and a long time ago on this website, on others, and on http://www.4international.me, Bibi Netanyahu is a treasured asset but in only one post, as spokesman for the decisions of the War Cabinet aka True Israeli Government. Bibi will be handed the line and he will put it in words. Bibi sells concepts. Patriots will check on this output…naturally.
What other steps would a war cabinet take, and I mean take next week.
I certainly would not start with Arabs. I would start with Israeli Jews who are acting as traitors to Jews, and with the Diaspora Traitors like the ADL of Foxman, who are attacking Pamela Gellers’ bus ads as I speak. Break all contact with them. Disown them. Say they do not in any respect represent Jews.
As to traitor Jews in Israel, in the Universities, in Politics, in NGOs etc. Easy! Remove them from post! Very simple, Steven Plaut has a fair idea who these are so just do it. If they slander against Israel expel them.
Remove from not just post, but from the IDF, any general who has opposed striking against Iran, or raised any doubt about doing so.
Unify the Jewish people on that war footing. Ignore the trade union leaders who can see just as far as their economic noses. This is not about wages. This is existence.
A special fund. Ask all rich Jews to contribute specially. That should tell a tale or two. Pay great attention so that the poor in Israel can live in more comfort.
The end result is inevitable and the positions of Arab Israelis is the simplest of all.
I have said it very often. Jews did not ever create one atom of Antisemitism. Jews must live alone. On a piece of earth where they are unmolested by Antisemitism. Can Arabs or Gentiles live in Israel? Sure! As guests of the Jews! No other way! If they are decent to the Jews they will agree very much. Modern day Trotskyism and the Bible come together on that and that is not really an accident.
Leon Trotsky won the Civil war against all of Imperialism. He and Lenin had a cause and they got that cause across to inspire the poorest of the poor. Learn!
@ Vivarto:
We can only be destroyed by losing a real physical war.
Propaganda? If we were Coca Cola I might agree. 99.9% of the world is mostly indifferent to Israel and the Jews. We only become relevant to them when it effects their pockets literally and figuratively. Israel and the Jews will always be blamed and scapegoated for all the problems of the gentiles.
What Israel does on the ground in her own interests will effect the world’s perception for good or bad more than all the propaganda you could conjure up.
A normal people does not predicate it’s existence of the good will and suffrage of others.
Then we have never been a normal people.
We have had till now the good fortune to have survived, despite our totally corrupt, cowardly and mostly incompetent leaders.
@ Vivarto:
You have me at a disadvantage not knowing under what screen name you were then using.
@ Shmuel Edelblum:
From personal experience Christian Arabs hate the Jews more than do the Muslim Arabs and the Loyalty of young Druze and Northern Bedouin, are becoming each year more radicalized and are more and more joining their Muslim brothers in anti Israel activities either ad hock or aligned with terror organizations.
Your idealistic views are not in line either with halacha or even secular pragmatic realism based on facts.
@ Shmuel Edelblum:
The Mitzvah of “Yishuv Ha’Aretz” is not time bound but applicable at all times and in every generation. Ramban, Abarbanel, Rashi.
The correct order has always been… “Vehorashtem”: Drive them out. “Vehorashtem et ha’aretz”: If you first “clear out the Land of its inhabitants”, then – “viyeshavtem bah” – you will be able to survive in it. Otherwise, you will be unable to survive in it.
While it is true that the national religious movement in Israel has put forth great efforts in the fulfilling of the mitzvah Yishuv Ha’Aretz (the settling of the Land), it is important to point out that they are familiar with only half of the mitzvah. For the mitzvah of ‘Yishuv Ha’Aretz’ has two sides to it. Well known to us all is the first side — the establishing of settlements. That’s the nice part of the mitzvah. But it is the other side that has been totally ignored by those who proudly wave the banner of ‘Yishuv Ha’Aretz’. Obviously, we are speaking of the mitzvah of expelling the gentile from the Land. […]Settling the Land and expelling the gentiles in it are not only two sides of the same mitzvah, but each side is actually dependent on the other. The Torah constantly warns us about the impossibility of fulfilling just half of the mitzvah: If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, those who remain shall be barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, causing you troubles in the Land you settle (Num. 33:55)
Another settlement is not the answer to the Arab terror, but rather the Arab terror is the result of our being content with making settlements and not completing the entire mitzvah — which is the expulsion of the Arabs. The solution to the terror is the fulfillment of the entire mitzvah of ‘Yishuv Ha’Aretz’.
@ yamit82:
Yamit: I was responding to the author’s shallow (and not surprisingly, last) appraisal of the only rational approach to Israel’s future. His rejection is mostly on demographic rationale; which is both false and remediable.
It is clear from my approach that “transfer” or removal of non-Jews (and some self hating Jews) is very desirable. We have had many opportunities to do this without recompense. In the real world it can still be done “under our control” with cash and death or expulsion of militants. The Arabs, contrary to their leader’s rabid assertions, are NOT descendants of the people the Torah has commanded us to purge, nor are they idolators according to our Rabbis. Thus, within Israel they are part of the “mixed multitude.”
yamit82 Said:
Sorry, but this is not true! There are all kinds of Arabs: Christian, Buddhist, Zionist, loyalists, Communists, American, Educated, Short, Tall, Fat…etc., etc.
And their children and grandchildren are not to be feared. And we must be responsible for the education of their remnant!
yamit82 Said:
I am treating them as what they are: illegal immigrants! That is not a prejudice or bigotry. Citizenship for immigrants is an earned privilege.
@ Bernard Ross:
Children, or certainly grand children of Goys who are living and seving in Israel as patriotic citizen, should be fully absorbed as part of Jewish nation.
A gentile can be a good citizen. It is hard for a Muslim to be a good citizen, because their religion is antisemitic. Sadly most (not all but most) Muslim could easily be turned into dangerous enemies within.
Christians, too, are antisemitic, if they claim that “Jews killed Jesus”, or that “Jewish religion was superseded by Christianity”, or that somehow Christianity is higher than Judaism. On the other hand if they accept that Christianity is just another Jewish sect, then they should be welcome among Jews just like various Hassids, and Essenes.
Even if they think that Jesus was god, that’s harmless, just like it would be harmless if some silly sect thought that Esaias was god.
@ yamit82:
Very interesting and important subject. I would like to explore it in a conversation with someone who is capable of viewing the subject from different perspectives and always attempting to find the valuable part in what the other is saying.
My previous experience of trying to discus complex subjects with you, was that such conversations devolved into personal attacks. Hence even thought i am very interested in exploring this subject I’ll respectfully decline your invitation.
One of the main problems of Israel is the large number of anti Zionists, many of them being Jews. They will undermine Israel at every opportunity. Even now they are very actives.
@ yamit82:
My Jewish identity has nothing to do with religion. I despise religions.
I am 100% for Israel, 100% Zionist.
I agree that we need to take action without asking for approval, and at the same time, it is essential that we understand that we can be destroyed by loosing the propaganda war.
For example if Hitler was perceived positively, he would have won the war with Soviet Union, England would make peace with him, and America would join the war.
So the perception is important.
@ Bernard Ross:
1- No Arab can be loyal to a Jewish and Zionist state. Every Arab whether he openly admits to it or not believes all of the Land is his and we are foreign thieves. He will teach these beliefs to his many many children who in turn will teach them to their many many children and in a generation we will be back to square 1.
2- It is a Halacha.
NO PAGAN BELIEVERS; Obscenity Incorporated
yamit82 Said:
Greetings, Yamit. Sorry to poke in my nose but I was interested in your reasoning regarding “all arabs and gentiles”. Although I am for transfer in general for many reasons (hostile 5th column,islamic disrespect of jews,jewish refugees from arab lands, JEW FREE state of Jordan on Jewish homeland, etc) I surmise that your use of the word “all” is for other reasons.
@ Shmuel Edelblum:
No Arab is an asset. All must go. All gentiles must go as well.
4) Citizenship is an earned right. In the U.S. millions of illegals don’t have the vote and don’t even have a path to obtain it. We should institute a path for citizenship which includes state service, a loyalty pledge, sworn disavowal of Muslem laws regarding burkas, plural marriage, honor killings and other tenets anathema to any advanced civilization today (witness the burka in France and the bizarre banning of shechita in Scandinavia). Gerrymandering is unnecessary; it will take decades for a substantial number of new Arab citizens to emerge.
Citizenship is an earned right.
No, it’s a function of each nations laws and cultural quirks. You would not have had the right to vote in the first hundred years of American history and women for less than a hundred.
That would be considered cultural bigotry, religious prejudice and apartheid and they would be correct in their view.
Having lived many years in what you would call primitive societies and civilizations when compared to what you call civilized, I’m not convinced they are so primitive or your civilization so advanced.
Never confuse technological advancement with advanced civilization.
@ Vivarto:
New Jewish identity? like what?
What you see is what you got.
Your suggestion falls apart totally when you predicate anything we do based on the approval of the non Jewish world.
We indeed need a new solution that starts with us, the Jews.
First and most importantly we need to acknowledge a new Jewish identity, one beyond the divisions between secular and religious Jews.
Postulating that there is something deeper than both that is present in both behind the apparent differences.
Secondly the world opinion must be won for support of Jewish national and state’s survival.
Then the transfer will become feasible.
The “palestinians” are not a separate ethnic group. They are Arabs.
He does not discuss the transfer, just mentions it.
I think that eventual transfer of great majority of Arabs from both smaller Israel and Judea/Samaria is the only solution.
Having this as goal will create direction.
For example all proposals that aim at improve the lives of Arabs in Israel, Judea and Samaria are counterproductive.
Arabs should either become Jews which would require abandoning Islam, and accepting some basic form of Judaism with minimal observance e.g. recognizing Shabbat, sincere participation in IDF and all other national necessities of defense, or be expelled.
I would advise that Sherman heed his own words. EG:
all of the outcomes have obstacles and most of these obstacles emanate from non Israeli sources. It is likely that there will be no solution which gives justice to,and is in the interest of, Israel and the Jews that is acceptable to the outsiders. Therefore, the probability of war and force, either as a result of unilateral action or as a breakdown of a so called “peace” agreement/solution(as with Egypt), is the most likely outcome.
NOt so! Jordan is unstable. The Hashemites must come to terms with their Palestinian population and integrate them or they will be deposed. In either scenario there are opportunities for peaceful or hostile transfers.
All of Martin’s scenarios are centered on the “what to do with the arabs” issue. One should notice that this issue is never a concern of the arab/muslim enemies of what to do with the Jews. The solution must start with what is best for the Jews, then identify the obstacles and come up with the optimum solutions. All solutions will have obstacles, antagonism and problems.
It is obvious to most that Israel must unltimately annex the west bank as there can be no hostile nation within its midst. after this it must decide what to do with the arabs as there can be no hostile population allowed to remain within a nations midst. A hostile population must be transferred or expelled and the only question is as to how, where and when. Although the most likely place of transfer, especially in the legal sense, is the balance of the Palestine mandate JEW FREE muslim nation of Jordan. it is not Israels problem as to where they must go. Those that are immediate threats can be transferred to any one of Israels hostile borders by force if necessary. NO citizenship should be offered: why should Israel step in to give Jordanian citizens a citizenship of Israel. Jordans unilateral citizenship deprivation is not Israels responsibility. They are to be viewed as Jordanian citizens or at best former Jordanian citizens now stateless. As Israel is already accused of every war crime in the book, Israel can set up buffer zones in the territories of Syria,Lebanon and Gaza and then transfer hostiles to those areas. Therefore,Israel does have control over transfer, physically. Regarding transfer to Jordan” this has solutions either through agreement or when in a state of war after the coming ouster of the Hashemites.
The only obstacle to a solution comes from the Jewish Israelis themselves. The first priority is not what to do for the arabs but what to do for the jews. Martins “obstacles” are contingent on where the fluid situations are going. What is certain in all scenarios is that it is impossible to come to any dependable peace agreement as all the enemy players ar always in flux. To relyon the stability of todays, or percived future situations, is folly. Therefore a unilateral solution backed by military, legal, PR and economic strategies is the likely outcome.
When I was a boy and becoming an adult I played a lot of Gaelic Football and this may or may not have happened. The young player picked up the ball out of his own backline, and began to solo, he proceeded almost the length of the pitch with the opponent team falling back, falling back. the crowd was losing its senses. He went for a point eventually and it went wide, but always wondered that he should have gone the whole hog, do or die, for a goal attempt. Martin’s analysis is a little like that, it dies at the end. That is because the issue of Israel and Islamists cannot be settled in this confined way. I am thinking more of the role of the MAIN player, which is the US.
The PLO/Fatah does have differences with Hamas, but in the interests of Iran and to destroy Israel they are minor
The PLO/Fatah (Arafat the first to be invited to Teheran in 1979) was the first to aid Khomeini
It was prepared to risk everything with Sunni world to do so
So why the close relationship with Iran?
The US created the PLO/Fatah
But the PLO (partly) created Khomeini
Yet the US pretended to be the enemy of Khomeini
The US could have flattened EASILY the Uranium Enrichment by Iran at any time
But it held Israel back from doing so until it is now too late
Is the US behind Iran as a counter weight against Israel is a hypothesis not to be dismissed.
As the US seeks dominance in the region and keeps on doing so..we have to take seriously and seek to discover the reasons behind this phenomenon.
Is the US creating states and regions of chaos in order to rule? This has to be looked at seriously because the results of all its interventions have been states of chaos.
If the US created Khomeini and is the patron of PLO then the US intervention in Tunisia, Ivory Coast, Egypt and above all Libya (direct war) becomes more understandable
What does the US stand to gain from being promoters of chaos in the Middle East Region?
Lesson of history…It is speculated that if Hitler had chosen the Middle East first rather than Russia then he had created a base to strike against Russia and the East, South to Africa and West to the US…speculation now is that was a more successful strategy. The US steeped in war game strategy would be aware of this
Now the US is securing Chaos and Islamist Rule in the Middle East thus laying the foundation for a later strike against Russia, India and China (their Islamist ally Pakistan is already in place to strike against India)
The US is more than a bear in a china shop, the US always has had a strategy at every point in its history. If Jews ever hopeful claim the US is Bumbling bear then that absolves Jews and Israel from doing anything, say strike alone against Iran…Note Peres said just this yesterday. Because the Bumbling bear is always bumping into the china but still and all has a good heart!
There are big sections of the capitalist loving and US Imperialism loving Jewish world who are in with the US on this. Some are at the top level. Some just go along because it is the US and it is an ideological anti-communist position. That may be obvious and undeniable. However the point is these are traitors to the Jewish cause. These forces are directly or indirectly assisting their worst enemies, the Islamists, who have a strong ideological desire to destoy Israel and to kill all Jews.
Or I could have just said: the Islamists are just the tools…the organ grinder is the US.
Your response to the proposal to annex Judea and Samaria focuses on the socioeconomic perils that you imagine will cripple the economy. I think the facts suggest otherwise:
1) we don’t have to guess at the demographics…we should simply give the Arab population one week to surrender all weapons, take a door by door census, rigorously identify all inhabitants and their relationships with finger prints, retinal scans, photographs, face recognition data bases etc.(even implantation of ID chips if necessary) and expel or kill anyone found with guns, bombs, etc.
2) we should offer $10,000 to any Arab who voluntarily leaves the country forever. We have managed to hoard 80 Billion dollars in cash that’s enough to rid the country of all takers…even inside the green line. We should prohibit the illegal importation of any form of aid whether from the UN, US or Arab countries; aid is dependency and it is being used against us!
3) the remaining Arab population is an asset to the country. They are the best educated Arabs and the sincerest entrepreneurs in the Arab world. They also constitute an inexpensive labor pool that will, if anything, accelerate economic growth in Israel.
4) Citizenship is an earned right. In the U.S. millions of illegals don’t have the vote and don’t even have a path to obtain it. We should institute a path for citizenship which includes state service, a loyalty pledge, sworn disavowal of Muslem laws regarding burkas, plural marriage, honor killings and other tenets anathema to any advanced civilization today (witness the burka in France and the bizarre banning of shechita in Scandinavia). Gerrymandering is unnecessary; it will take decades for a substantial number of new Arab citizens to emerge.
5) we currently have Arabs in the Kenesset, but we permit them to be seditious and racist. We booted Kahane and his party for advocating the Torah…we can boot Arabs who are not loyal to the state.
6) we should enforce our laws equally for Arabs ie. no more Beduin tents, everyone pays taxes, no more illegal housing, death penalty for those who punish sales of real estate to Jews, etc.
I could go further, but I think you get the drift. Let’s get real! We can’t have a worse situation than we do now! At least we will be in control and have recognized defensible borders. At last we will be able to tell the world to mind their own horrible business.